Allowed

B.Priyadharsini v. G.Gopikrishnan

Madras HC12 Feb 2021TR CMP/28/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a Transfer Conscious Miscellaneous Petition was allowed. The court directed the transfer of Husband's Originated Petition for dissolution of marriage from Sub-Court, Poonamallee to II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried jointly with the Wife's Original Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, citing financial hardship and geographical distance.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.145 of 2020 transferred from Sub-Court Poonamallee to II Additional Family Court Chennai for joint trial with O.P.No.2965 of 2020.

B.Priyadharsini Vs G.Gopikrishnan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.961 of 2021

Mrs.B.Priyadharsini

.. Petitioner

vs.

Mr.G.Gopikrishnan

PRAYER : Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.145 of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub-Court at Poonamallee and transfer the same to the files of II Additional Family Court at Chennai to try jointly along with O.P.No.2965 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Family Court at Chennai.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan For Respondent :

¶8

Mr.S.Raghuman

¶9

The petition for transfer is filed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.145 of 2020 from Sub-Court, Poonamallee to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11.11.2016 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner and the respondent started their matrimonial life happily. Within a short span of time, the difference of opinion aroused between the spouses and the petitioner states that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The petitioner is now residing along with her mother at Chennai. The petitioner states that her mother is a widow she has no source of income for the purpose of defending the case. The petitioner filed O.P.No.2965 of 2020 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, for for Restitution of Conjugal rights. The respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.145 of 2020 before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee for Dissolution of Marriage. Thus, it is stated that a joint trial is required and the petitioner is not in a position to travel all along and contest the case at Poonamallee.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled through the decisions 3 of the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-

¶12

(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010 has held as follows:-

¶13

''21. The domicile or citizenship of the opposite party is immaterial in a case like this. In case the marriage was solemnized under Hindu Law marital relationship is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, Section 19 has to be given a purposeful interpretation. It is the residence of the wife, which determines the question of jurisdiction, in case the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the wife. 22. While considering a provision like Section 19 (iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the objects and reasons which prompted the parliament to incorporate such a provision has also to be taken note of. Sub Clause (iii-a) was inserted in Section 19 with a specific purpose. Experience is the best teacher. The Government found the difficulties faced by women in the matter of initiation of matrimonial proceedings. The report submitted by the Law Commission as well as National Commission for Women, underlying the need for such amendment so as to enable the women to approach the nearest jurisdictional court to redress their matrimonial grievances, were also taken note of by the Government. Therefore such a beneficial provision meant for the women of our Country should be given a meaningful interpretation by Courts.''

¶14

(ii) In yet another case in TR.CMP.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, dated 30.08.2006, the High Court of Madras has considered the following judgments:-

¶15

''16.In AIR 2000 SC 3512

¶16

(1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), when the wife pleaded that she was unable to bear the traveling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of proceedings.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Honourable Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.

¶19

In 2000 (9) SCC 355, the wife has filed a petition to transfer the proceedings initiated by the husband for divorce, at Bombay. The place of residence of the wife was at Jaipur, Rajasthan. In that case, the petitioner is having a small child and that she pleaded difficulty in going all the way from Jaipur to Bombay to contest the proceedings from time to time. Considering the distance and the difficulties faced by the wife, the Supreme Court has allowed the transfer petition.

¶20

In a decision reported in 2005 (12) SCC 395, the wife has sought for transfer of matrimonial proceedings and a divorce petition has been filed by the respondent's husband at Baikunthpur to be transferred to Allahabad, where the petitioner's wife was residing, on the ground that it would be difficult for her to undertake such long distance journey, particularly in circumstances, in which she finds that the proceedings under 5 Section 125 Cr.P.C. was already pending before the Family Court, Allahabad. Considering the difficulties faced by the wife and also the long distance journey, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to order transfer of the proceedings to Allahabad.

¶21

(iii) In a decision made in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dated 03.03.2011, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, has observed as below:-

¶22

''18.It is true that section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of proviso of (iii)(a) to section 19. Of Course, this amended section 19(iii)(a) gives special preference to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of the husband before the Court within whose jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights of the women, who are being subjected to harassment and cruelty. But this special preference conferred under section 19 (iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck vengeance on the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

In view of the facts and circumstances, the H.M.O.P.No.145 of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee stands transferred to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶25

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.28 of 2021 stands allowed and H.M.O.P.No.145 of 2020 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, is directed to be transferred to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with O.P.No.2965 of 2020. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
Kak
To
1.The Judge,
Sub Court, Poonamallee.
2.The Judge,
II Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
Tr.CMP No.28 of 2021
nrl(co)
aa04/03/2021

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

B.Priyadharsini v. G.Gopikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Priyadharsini v. G.Gopikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nithya Vs Karthick Chandrakumar

A.Elizabeth @ Rani Vs P.Anantha Padmanaban

The Union of India Owning Vs R. Malar

J.Syamallamma Vs the Union of India Owning

Ahalyaa Anandan Vs M. Balaji

The Union of India Owning Vs S. Chinnaponnu